The High Court judge says publishing district judges’ decisions could improve transparency and assist appeals.
The publication of extradition judgments should be expanded to improve transparency and support appeals, according to Mr Justice Fordham, who has outlined six key points about the role of extradition district judges’ decisions.
Speaking at the Extradition District Judges Conference on 19 October 2026, the High Court judge explained why written judgments are central to the parties’ understanding of a case and to the High Court’s consideration of extradition appeals.
Judgments must explain the decision
Mr Justice Fordham said an extradition district judge’s judgment is the official account of the decision for the parties. It should explain how the statutory framework was applied, how the evidence was assessed, which factual findings were made, and how the relevant legal principles and arguments informed the outcome.
He emphasised that judges must provide legally adequate reasons for their decisions. The judgment should make clear who succeeded, on which issues and why.
Why the judgment matters in an appeal
The High Court judge described the district judge’s judgment as the essential reference point for an extradition appeal. The appeal court must consider whether the original judge made an error; the process is not simply a fresh hearing in which the case begins again.
Mr Justice Fordham said advocates should therefore engage directly with the original judgment when challenging factual findings or legal reasoning. Repeating submissions made below, or presenting the case from scratch, may overlook the analysis already undertaken by the district judge.
He referred to Hojka v Polish Judicial Authority [2026] EWHC 2400 (Admin) as an illustration of how an appeal may concern the application of established legal principles rather than an alleged misstatement or omission of the law.
He also stressed that, once the judgment has been delivered, the district judge’s role in the individual case is complete. The judge should not seek to supplement the original reasoning simply because the decision is being challenged.
Wider publication could strengthen open justice
A central proposal in the speech was to publish extradition district judges’ judgments more widely through the National Archives and BAILII.
Mr Justice Fordham noted that judgments in Government of the United States of America v Daniel Andreas San Diego and Government of Ukraine v Artem Dmytruk had been published on the judiciary website in February and March 2026 respectively. He observed that these decisions were not readily available through the National Archives or BAILII and did not carry neutral citations.
He argued that more consistent publication would support open justice by allowing the public, journalists, academics and legal professionals to examine decisions and understand how extradition law is applied.
Wider access could also help researchers assess how frequently particular arguments, including those based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, are raised and how often they succeed. It could provide appeal judges with direct access to the decisions under challenge and potentially reduce the need to reproduce lengthy extracts in appeal judgments.
Consistency must reflect individual circumstances
Mr Justice Fordham also addressed the need to balance consistency with individualised decision-making. Although judges must apply the correct legal principles, extradition cases remain intensely fact-specific. Each requested person and requesting state is entitled to have the law applied to the circumstances of the individual case.
His final point concerned evaluative judgment. Findings of fact, assessments of credibility and proportionality decisions may involve judgments made by the court best placed to examine the evidence. The approach taken by an appeal court will depend on the nature of the issue under challenge.
The speech sets out Mr Justice Fordham’s perspective on judicial reasoning, appeals and transparency. His proposal for wider publication identifies potential benefits for open justice and appellate proceedings; it does not announce a new publication requirement.